248 / Being and Having television cameras into their real lives. “What would have happened,” Baudrillard asks, “if TV hadn’t been there?” (Simulacra 28). The ordinary person is a TV star now—look at the Loud family—people just like you and me, their everyday thoughts and experiences transformed into sub- jects of extreme public fascination. If TV didn’t ruin their family, we may consider that it’s what the TV stands for that ruined their family. For the Louds, it was as though they traded places with any of the ide- alized television families of their time. Suddenly, you wake up in televi- sion space, where, as a family, you cannot help but see yourself in rela- tion to other television families. You realize you don’t belong there, in television space, held up to the television family-values of the late 1960s and early 1970s; your family doesn’t know its lines. You will fall apart. Divorce. The word “model” contains the etymological unfolding of the re- versal Baudrillard observes between the order of the real and represen- tation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “model” originally meant a “representation of structure” or “a description of structure.” Subsequently (in 1625) it came into use for “a representation in three di- mensions of some projected or existing structure, or of some material object artificial or natural, showing the proportions and arrangement of its component parts” and (in 1639) for “an object of imitation.” Not un- til 1788 was “model” used in the sense of “a person or thing eminently worthy of imitation; a perfect exemplar of excellence.” In other words, no longer just an object of imitation, “model” has come to mean “a superior excellence.” The very temporal order between model and “real” structure is unclear. A model structure can imitate a preexisting structure or, through functioning as projection, it can precede what thus will necessarily be a form of imitation on a larger scale. Even in its seventeenth-century usage, the word “model” as an object of imitation suggests an inherent confusion in the very idea of imitation, projec- tion—and, ultimately, perfection itself. Not only is the distinction be- tween material reality and representation complicated, but additionally unsettled is the question of where perfection is located, in the past or the Being and Having / 249 future. It is specifically within this ambiguity that simulation will be dis- severed from representation. “Model” defined as “an artist’s model” was first recorded in 1691; not until 1904 was this use transferred to the notion of a clothing model: “A woman who is employed in a draper’s or milliner’s shop to exhibit to customers the effect of articles of costume by attiring herself in them.” Originally meant to illustrate what the clothes would look like on the person who would come to own them, the model nevertheless implicitly offered a “perfect” version to the consumer’s eye. It is through insuffi- ciency patterns of consumption and the ascendance of a retail-based economy that the model’s body (in the sense of a projection of what the consumer will come to have) becomes imaginatively part of the whole package. In order to sell the product, the model’s body must be the perfect form to reveal the clothing to its best advantage. As many have noted, bodies are thus necessarily subordinated to the clothing, for which the “best” body is the body best suited to the design of the cloth- ing. That the model wearing the merchandise is a representation of how the consumer might appear in the same outfit seems self-evident until we consider whether the consumer’s desire is to become the model/ clothing package itself. The World War I shift from displaying women’s clothing on headless dressmaker dummies to more lifelike wax models indicates a significant shift in the perceived relationship between the “model” body and the “real” consumer body. Gail Reekie shows that the implications of the changeover were consciously understood by the win- dow dressers. She quotes one window dresser’s expressed preference for the headless dummies: [It] leaves something to the imagination, so that the customer can easily visualise her own figure in the frock. . . . the simple suggestion of a drape [leaves] the rest to the customer’s imagination. She gets a real pleasure in fancying how she will look in this or that material etc. Don’t deprive her of that pleasure. She can’t imagine herself as the t heatrical young lady with the pearly complexion and ruby lips of t he wax model. (143) 250 / Being and Having The “theatrical young lady” of course alludes to actresses as the official type of glamorous beauty. As wax models became ubiquitous, “the cus- tomer had no choice but to attempt to match her bodily appearance with that of the full model in the window” (143). Increasingly, the buyer’s pleasure would be to imagine herself looking like the model when she donned the dress. The “original” is no longer the consumer but rather the model, whom the consumer aims to emulate. But even the model’s status as orig- inal is derailed, inasmuch as the model is both ideal body and projection of the consumer body. Hence the simulacral effect. It is not just that the simulation precedes the real (“the precession of simulacra”); rather it is the undoing of precedence that undoes the reliable structure of repre- sentation as well. Television performs all three kinds of “models”— the model as per- fect exemplar, the model as projection of a future material reality, and the model based on a (prior) material reality. That, from its inception, television has offered “model” families suggests its collusion with the processes of reversing the order of the real. Far more accessible and more familiar-looking than films, where the stories have typically fo- cused on larger-than-life characters and experiences that seem far re- moved from daily life, television has focused on the minor mishaps that might preoccupy any of us. Lynn Spigel writes that “in quite contra- dictory ways, the ideal sitcom was expected to highlight both the expe- rience of theatricality and the naturalism of domestic life. At the same time that family comedies encouraged audiences to feel as if they were in a theater watching a play, they also asked viewers to believe in the re- ality of the families presented on the screen” (157). It is in the apparent familiarity that television can do damage; entreating us to watch people just like us, television induces a slow reversal and the replica models be- come exemplary models. Focusing on the Loud family, Baudrillard inquires into the very con- cept of “TV verité.” “A term admirable in its ambiguity, does it refer to the truth of this family or to the truth of TV? In fact, it is TV that is the truth of the Louds, it is TV that is true, it is TV that renders true” (Sim- Being and Having / 251 ulacra 29). The Louds arrive on the edge of the reversal of the real and the imitation, as though to reassure the audience that TV characters can and should be like us. But, as Baudrillard claims, this family “was already hyperreal by the very nature of its selection: a typical ideal American family, California home, three garages, five children, assured social and professional status, decorative housewife, upper-middle-class standing” (28). All this statistical perfection, this apparently inviolable image, could not arm them against a more extreme perfection, the very imita- tive social space upon which they built their actual lives. Lost in the tele- visual world, the Loud family was shattered by the violence done to their image. It was in being transplanted from audience to the very place where model families are fashioned and deployed that the Louds came to terms with their insufficiency. COLONIZING THE AMERICAN BODY Television is a favorite and easy target for media critics. In the 1960s, Daniel Boorstin pointed to television as the main forum for what he called the “pseudo-event.” Pseudo-events supplant what Boorstin calls “spontaneous events.” They are staged for us by the visual media and, because of their theatrical drama, have much more power over us than the uncontained and fragmentary nature of “real” spontaneous events. Celebrities, for Boorstin, are “human pseudo-events.” Most worrisome, “what happens on television will overshadow what happens off televi- sion” (39). This is because television seductively frames and makes com- pelling what otherwise is just life. Television for Boorstin reverses the order of and preference for the original and the make-believe. “The Grand Canyon itself became a disappointing reproduction of the Ko- dachrome original” (14). Neil Postman has accused television of being the most pernicious form of mind-numbing “amusement” that has sup- planted an engaged print culture. Richard Schickel claims that because it is positioned in our very own homes, television most nearly invites the false sense of intimacy with celebrities. What all these critics have in 252 / Being and Having common is the worry that television puts us to sleep intellectually, leads us to conform mindlessly, anesthetizes any impulse for social criticism or resistance—not to mention causes the more general anxieties around television as the origin of everything from violence to drug culture in its influence on the nation’s young. While the vilification of both technology and popular culture has significant historical antecedents, what is specific to a televisual culture is the spatial relocation (and resizing) of celebrities. Not only does tele- vision have the effect of containing and normalizing the previously larger-than-life “film star,” but also both stars and their practices seem within reach by virtue of sheer proximity and possession (they are caught within our household space). If, as Schickel argues, it’s true that we feel increasingly “intimate” with those who appear within the con- fines of our own homes, then we also feel as though their bodies are more achievable role models. This shift from the outside of our homes to the inside, however, has always been met with a kind of slow panic. For, if we feel that we can appropriate or own their bodies, we are at the same time worried that they might colonize ours. Although the spate of 1950s films about alien invasions are commonly read as the cultural resi- due of “red scare” anxiety, what if they were recording anxiety over a dif- ferent kind of invasion— one closer to home? 14 Rod Sterling’s Twilight Zone series, which ran from 1959 to 1964, often self-reflexively points to its own medium as a central player in the dystopic transformations of the culture. Both Susan Bordo and Elizabeth Haiken, in their commentaries on cosmetic surgery, have pointed to a famous Twilight Zone episode, “The Eye of the Beholder,” as the paradigmatic story of the normalization of society through appearance. The protagonist, Janet Tyler, is being treated for apparently hideous ugliness—so extreme that others treat her as an object of terror. When we first see her, her face is concealed under layers of bandages. This is her eleventh treatment in the hospital, where doctors struggle to make her appear “normal.” When Miss Ty- ler’s bandages are removed, she and the doctors lament her unchanged Being and Having / 253 condition. She will, they tell her, need to be transported to “the colony,” where she can live out her life with others of her own unfortunate kind. The dramatic irony of the episode lies in the fact that, when the ban- dages are unwrapped, we see a woman whom we would call convention- ally beautiful, played by Donna Douglas in fact; most important, she has the ideal female appearance for the time period, softly blonde and curvy. The doctors and nurses, conversely, are grotesquely pig-faced. Certainly the intention of the episode is a condemnation of a society in which people all have to be alike—hence the power of the ironic contrast between the beautiful Tyler and the monstrous doctors. Yet this very episode is ironically (and interminably) complicit with the normalizing practices it condemns. It is only because of a culturally shared code of beauty that this episode works. So dependent is the episode on exactly the kind of shared convention of physical beauty it claims to repudiate, that two actresses were hired to play the character of Janet Tyler, one with and one without bandages. As the director of the episode, Douglas Heyes, explained: The important surprise is that the girl who emerges from the ban- dages is incredibly beautiful by our standards. . . . So it doesn’t really matter, I said, if that girl is a great actress or not so long as she’s a great beauty. It does ma t ter that the girl under the bandages is a great actress, but we’re not going to be able to see her. Now, it’s very dif- ficult to find a great beauty who is that great an actress, so my origi- nal concept was that it would be easier to find a great actress who could do the voice and then find a great beauty who could look like that. (Zicree 147) Television and film best achieve this combination (one actress to speak and the other to appear), which Heyes takes for granted as an artistic necessity. That Tyler’s physical appearance plays a central “role” in the narrative is an element to which we have become accustomed in film and television. Ultimately, Maxine Stuart was cast as the voice of the bandaged Tyler. She noted the degree to which the casting wound up 254 / Being and Having confirming the very conformity the episode attacks: “‘It’s absolutely right for Hollywood to do a script about conformity and then demand that your leading lady conform to a standard of beauty’” (147). But how else can a beauty-centered culture be defined without appealing to these powerful, already shared conventions? The fact that there was no other way to express the point suggests that the televisual apparatus could not help but be complicit with the social order it was challenging— that every challenge to the beauty industry would involve yet another submission. Rod Serling introduces each episode by beckoning us into “another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind, a jour- ney into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Your next stop—the twilight zone.” Isn’t this dimension promised by Serling no more and no less than the medium through which he tells his stories—television? And then you don’t have to travel very far— only as far as the boundaries of your closest television screen. Some episodes seem remarkably like allegories of television. “I Sing the Body Electric,” in which a family purchases a robot in the form of a kindly grandmother to replace the dead mother, is ostensibly about the fantasy of overcom- ing separation and loss (“I can’t die,” the robot assures them), but just as clearly seems to be about the new role of television in the modern fam- ily. As Serling puts it, the robot is “a woman built with precision with the incredible ability of giving loving supervision to your family.” Not only blamed for a host of social ills, the television is also made the cultural representative of absent parents, of mothers who abandon their children to a whole range of substitutes, including electronic ones. What if the television were better than a real mother—not only because it’s immortal, but also, and more to the point, because it’s always there for you? 15 Jean Baudrillard sees television as the culture’s primary vehicle of the hyperreal—“a miniaturized terminal that, in fact, is immediately located in your head—you are the screen, and the TV watches you—it transis- torizes all the neurons and passes through like a magnetic tape—a tape, Being and Having / 255 not an image” (Simulacra 51). Critics find television’s menace lurking— like the monsters or aliens or whatever happens to be invading our peaceful planet—in the way it simulates us, the TV viewer. Typically, Twilight Zone episodes chart the panic of being colonized by aliens who “look like” us. In “Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?” the chal- lenge is to distinguish between the “real humans” and the Martian who is passing as human. What we learn is that there are not one but two aliens, a Martian and a Venusian, both having been sent ahead to be- gin colonization of earth. Similarly, in “Monsters Are Due on Maple Street,” the denizens of the most typical of suburban American commu- nities kill each other in a frenzied search for the aliens among them who they imagine are passing as just another average American family. Worse yet, they lament, we are now the object, the secondary effect even, of the television that somehow looks more real than those who watch it. We are socialized by TV, which is, according to Baudrillard, yet another re- sult of the simulacral structure. “Everywhere socialization is measured by the exposure to media messages. Whoever is underexposed to the media is desocialized or virtually asocial” (Simulacra 80). Television is associated with a kind of cultural and social death. When television isn’t universally lowering our standard of taste along with our IQ, it is prodding us into unspeakable acts of violence, debasing our morals, supplanting the family, and, most insidious, luring us into a world of simulacra from which there is no escape. This is exactly the point of Peter Weir’s film The Truman Show, in which an “unwanted child” is adopted by a television studio and made to grow up alongside actors on a fictional set that he, Truman, takes for “real life.” Almost a parody of the Loud documentary, The Truman Show suggests that an en- tire life can happen within the confines of a television set. The whole na- tion has been watching Truman for thirty years—we see people who are tuned in twenty-four hours a day, as though Truman’s life (which is pure television) has replaced their own life; or rather, the lives of the viewers become as deeply televisual as Truman’s. Plotting a TV studio’s adop- tion of an unwanted child takes literally television’s baby-sitting func- 256 / Being and Having tion in the contemporary United States—as though to suggest that the child who chronically views television may as well grow up within the frame. The movie opens, however, with Truman’s dawning sense of the un- reality of his environment. He spends the first half of the film learning where he is and the second half trying to escape. Haunting the film is the question of how he would know the difference between a television set and real life; indeed, the film engages the fantasy that there is one. While the series producer, Cristof, is so desperate to keep Truman locked within his world that he almost kills his own character, the audi- ence eagerly identifies with Truman’s bid for freedom. When Truman finally escapes, there are great cheers among his viewing audience—and why not? The film’s plot, as though to prove there is more to life than the televisual, releases them, too, from this program, which can no longer exist without its central player. Why would we resent so deeply a technology that is so central to American experience, leisure, and pleasure? Lynn Spigel charts a 1950s panic around television as an instrument of surveillance: “The new TV eye threatens to turn back on itself, to penetrate the private window” (118). In other words, we all risk becom- ing Louds to one extent or another. This surveillance, Spigel points out, can feel sadistic (118). What is crucial to add here, what “The Eye of the Beholder” makes plain, is that surveillance is actually a form of evalua- tion. Not just a neutral overseeing gaze, the TV assesses us in relation to the images it puts forth—images uncannily familiar yet superior. It is in their domestic familiarity, in their simulacral power, that these images work on us. If you don’t submit to the televisual gaze, you risk being an outcast, an alien to your society, a monster. Your failure to emulate the television would make you look like the failed copy. One of the Twilight Zone’s most famous episodes, “Number Twelve Looks Just Like You,” parodies the social compulsion to model oneself on “model” bodies. We find ourselves in some future society where, at the age of seventeen, everyone is expected to choose one of two possible Being and Having / 257 bodies (one male model and two female) for surgical transformation. Seventeen-year-old Marilyn is resisting undergoing the “transforma- tion,” which is initially represented as optional but turns out to be com- pulsory. Marilyn’s mother, Lana, is played by the United States’ first su- permodel, Suzy Parker. Parker was cast for just this reason, because she epitomized a general image of “great beauty.” Moreover, it is in this final transition into a culture with supermodels that the model altogether ex- ceeds even the clothing and makeup she markets. Whatever she wears, she is in fact selling us her exemplary body. Lana urges her daughter to choose “number 12,” her own model number. To her mother and a friend, Marilyn insists upon free will and the importance of difference, but they can’t comprehend why anyone would refuse the proffered “beauty.” Marilyn also tries to sway the male doctors (a surgeon and psychiatrist—both played by Richard Long), who recognize her threat to the social order. Ultimately, she is forced to undergo the transformation. 16 In the end, Marilyn rushes from the operating room, exuberant over her new body, which seems to include an entirely new personality as part of the package. With so many visual doubles in the vicinity, it’s hardly necessary for Marilyn to turn to the mirror to see what she looks like, but that’s what she does. As she admires herself, she squeals to her friend: “And the nicest part of all, Val, I look just like you!” Serling’s closing commentary is predictably critical of the culture of narcissism: “Portrait of a young lady in love—with herself. Improbable? Perhaps, but in an age of plastic surgery, body building, and an infinity of cosmetics, let us hesitate to say impossible.” Like “The Eye of the Beholder,” the episode suggests that we can only criticize normalizing social practices from within their very terms. The show features the very idealized bodies that lead us viewers to want them for ourselves— especially in a show detailing the consumption of bodies through “choice” that isn’t really much of one. After all, there are just two models, which implies not just social conformism but the rigid- ity of beauty standards. 17 Having the effect of a mise en abyme, the char- acters choose from the models, just as viewers are expected to choose [...]... accomplishment of sorts? A repudiation of a certain structure of power that can no longer organize us through a radical separation of the star body from that of the viewer? If I am right about the trajectory of star culture that has culminated in a culture of cosmetic surgery, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that with the dissolution of the identificatory power residing in star culture would come the end of the. .. adore their surgeons often visit other surgeons, because when the nature of the subject is a certain experience of perfection, it’s hard to believe you’ve found it in either the result or the sur- Addicted to Surgery / 281 geon It is a circuit that takes you from one doctor to the next, from one procedure to the next; for a while you are exhilarated, as you wait for the beautified part to emerge from the. .. surgeons who specialize in cosmetic surgery are attracted to just this low-risk, high-satisfaction combination They didn’t want to work in the dismal field of poor prognoses and death, like neurosurgery, for example The father’s condemnation of the unnecessary aspect of cosmetic surgery was so very familiar to me that I steeled myself for a vigorous account of the differences between life-threatening problems... one surgeon None of them saw the equivalence between the two surgeries, the necessity for the “ugly duckling” to be transformed in the land of astounding metamorphosis Cosmetic surgery takes place in the domain of star culture, as I’ve been arguing all along When we have surgery, we are also identifying, Addicted to Surgery / 283 however remotely, with the transformational practices of celebrities Hence,... regular-looking women, when they come under the severe look of the camera Like the Loud family caught in the televisual landscape, they see themselves as inadequate And so does the audience Their hairstyles, wardrobes, noses, circumference of their thighs, you name it, are now topics for public discussion Marcia Clark, the prosecuting attorney of the O J Simpson trial, revamped her look entirely during the. .. Members of America Online were invited to vote on whether they preferred the pre- or post-op Linda At the same time, they were asked to decide whose surgery they liked best, Jennifer Gray’s nose job or Linda Tripp’s 282 / Addicted to Surgery face-lift? It wouldn’t be surprising if Linda Tripp were to become “addicted.” Courtney Love became famous for being unpretty and profane in the world of the surgically... repeatedly expressed to me their enjoyment of the procedure because of its technical challenges along with their awareness of the high risk of error: “That’s the most satisfying operation It’s hard to learn it because of the long delay to see the follow-up You have to look right five years later—because you see a lot of fake-looking noses, and they didn’t look that bad right after surgery In general, you... become? Suddenly the scalpel was sweeping along the edges of her face, and what was formerly the pristine intact fabric of her facial skin was rent and lifted As the surgery progressed and her muscles were rearranged and tissue was realigned over the bones in order to recreate the contours of youth, I began Being and Having / 261 to think of the surgery as the repair and the aging as the force that had... realize that no amount of surgery will transform a chronically unfaithful husband into the picture of fidelity? But she has found another man now, her surgeon, who will restore to her these lost treasures Losing the love of the camera might feel no different from losing the love of the husband This 270 / Addicted to Surgery is where the surgeon comes in—to rescue the fair princess, unlock the crone body in... “work,” and there are far fewer ethnic noses being bobbed Features that used to be considered worrisome because of their racial valence have been supplanted by a whole new category of the slightly imperfect.1 After a century’s worth of immersion in the close-up camera torture of star culture, we have come out on the other side with the ferocious perspective of a cinematographer Every day, the list unfurls . trajectory of star culture that has culminated in a culture of cosmetic surgery, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that with the dissolu- tion of the identificatory power residing in star culture. in the dismal field of poor prog- noses and death, like neurosurgery, for example. The father’s condem- nation of the unnecessary aspect of cosmetic surgery was so very famil- iar to me that I. nothing of substance. Similarly, the plastic surgery of the multitudes could be read not only as the culmination of the incursions of star culture but also as its ultimate undoing. Star culture,